Oh, what a tangled web Benedict has woven

When it comes to books, movies and television, I don’t particularly care for fiction.

Among the few things that I enjoy viewing on TV in particular are documentaries that detail real-life criminal investigations.

One of the things I’ve discovered from watching them is that while physical evidence – like bullet casings, hair fibers and fingerprints – sometimes plays a crucial role in identifying a culprit, the one indicator of guilt that seems to show up in practically every case concerns conflicting statements made by persons-of-interest.

That is why investigators always interrogate suspects multiple times. Inevitably, it seems, the guilty party eventually offers a story that plainly contradicts a previous claim.

Conflicting accounts are especially common in cases involving co-conspirators, who when questioned separately, almost always end up giving irreconcilable versions of what should be the same story.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave…

It’s that age old lesson that most of us learned as kids – when attempting to sell a lie, it’s very difficult to keep one’s story straight, and the more elaborate the deception, the tougher it is.

Oh, and one other thing I noticed; liars just can’t keep their mouths shut. They yammer on and on and on, often offering unnecessary details that only serve to shine the light of suspicion on themselves all the more directly.

Enter Francis the loquacious heretic, who in a recent interview with the Argentinian journal La Nación said of his alleged predecessor (translation provided by Vatican Insider):

He has trouble getting around but his brain and memory are functioning perfectly … His resignation brought to light all of the Church’s problems. His resignation had nothing to do with personal issues. It was an act of government. His last act of government.

One can hardly disagree with the claim that the “resignation” exposed more problems than it solved (Francis being the most daunting), but beyond that we have some glaring contradictions staring us in the face.

According to Benedict’s Declaratio of 11 February 2013, his resignation had everything to do with personal issues; with the implication being that they necessarily included the function of his brain and memory:

In order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.

The fact of the matter is, this latest comment from the blasphemer-in-chief isn’t a smoking gun; rather, it’s just one more piece of evidence among many that Benedict is perpetrating a magnificent act of deception.

In other Pope Contemplatus news:

German journalist Peter Seewald has conducted yet another book-length interview of Benedict; this one a memoir of sorts entitled, Ultime conversazioni (final conversations).

Though not scheduled for release until September 2016, Vatican Insider is reporting:

The veteran Vatican correspondent, Luigi Accattoli, will be offering a preview of some of the contents in an insert that will come with Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera.

In the book there is a passage in which Benedict XVI “admits he knew about the presence of a ‘gay lobby’, made up of four or five people, in the Vatican. He says he managed to break this pressure group up. This information is completely new,” says Accattoli.

Completely new? How about complete bull dung (to put it politely).

The Vatican “gay lobby” consisted of just four or five people? Who does he think he’s fooling?

You see, that’s another thing about serial deceivers – over time, especially if they are convinced that they’ve gotten away with their previous attempts at obfuscation (e.g., the Third Secret of Fatima) – they often tend to imagine that their audience is stupid enough to believe just about anything.

More unbelievable still is the claim that the homo-lobby was somehow broken up.

Recall the interim relatio of Extraordinary Synod 2014 extolling the “gifts and qualities homosexuals have to offer to the Christian community.”

I suppose this was included in the text under pressure from the Holy Ghost.

In any case, all indications are that Ultime conversazioni is going to be a best-seller.

I, however, have no intention whatsoever of wasting either my time or money on such a book since, as I said, I don’t particularly care for fiction.

4-5 is so obviously false! I am beginning to think it is a peculiarity of “Benedictine Romanitas’, ie say the party line, then throw in an obviously ludicrous statement to indicate the party line is also false.
For example, that letter stating that his abdication was valid because he acted freely, and the ONLY condition to a valid abdication was that it is free, then adding , ‘I wear white because there were no black cassocks available’. The last statement is so obviously false that surely Benedict intends us to interpret it as flag indicating the whole thing is a load of rubbish?

Louie, I do think you should read that book… there might be a great deal of truth between the lines.

Ratzinger continues to prove that he is as evil and twisted, if not more so, than Bergoglio. His statements about the Gay Lobby must seriously make us reconsider the narrative that we were sold by his apologists. He was most likely an enabler and not a victim of theirs.

I believe that Pope John Paul II had the Catholic Faith early in his Papacy. Then came the assassination attempt. He used that event to claim that he was the “Bishop dressed in white” and deceived the world about Fatima. I say, at that point, the devil entered into him.

Joseph Ratzinger was by John Paul II’s side at every turn. Complicit in every blasphemy and heresy. Pope Francis doesn’t seem to be that smart. He may even be cognitive impaired. Ratzinger owns the lion’s share of the blame in every which way.

Louie, If we do read between the lines could the book be proof-read by the Vatican powers that be and maybe given a slight twist here or there so that it might read more according to their taste? How free is Benedict to be able to say freely what he really wants to say or to get into print what he would really want to ? I find it hard to believe what ever comes from the Holy ( full of holes) city !

For those of us still inclined to give Benedict any benefit of the doubt, Id simply ask why? He was suspected of heresy way back in the reign of Pius XII, went on to show his true colors at the vatican 2 council, and then….in the 21st century mind you when Rome was already a total disaster…got elected “pope”. If Ratzinger had reformed from the man he was back in his v2 days, he never would have been elected pope to begin with AND, if by some miracle, he had become a convert AFTER his election, we would all be very well aware of it as he would have totally wrecked the v2 religion in his years on the “chair”. No. As is becoming more and more apparent as weeks and months pass, Ratzinger was always a deceiver and always working against the Catholic Church.

Whenever I picture him, this is one of the first images that comes to me. Him sitting next to an arch-heretic with a jacket and tie, looking absolutely nothing like a Catholic priest. Thank you for linking it.

One of the things I learned watching crime documentaries was how difficult it is to hide a dead body — and that’s is damn near impossible. Interesting in terms of the claims made for the resurrection. If there had been dead body lying around somewhere, it would have been found, somehow, eventually.

I don’t think any one of us could know with absolute certainty the truth behind the sudden resignation of Benedict. However, there is one thing which stands out in my mind. After the sudden, unexpected death of John Paul I, it would seem too suspicious if Benedict died after drinking coffee served to him at the Vatican. They had to find another way to replace him with a radical revolutuinary time bomb. This, of course, is all speculation. It is not meant to excuse Benedict in any way. Truth is, however, stranger than fiction.

At the expense of following Bergoglio’s advise not to judge, I think the motives attributed to Pope Benedict are harsh and unsubstantiated. No one knows his intent regarding his abdication, and it is that which Christ meant when he cautioned us not to judge. We cannot know motives. More obvious is the sense that something is very ‘off’ regarding the interactions between Bergoglio, Ganswein, and Pope Benedict. The video of Benedict’s 65th anniversary of priesthood is worth a million. While Benedict is talking (around the 35/20 mark) Bergogliio sits with a frozen simile on his face giving the distinct impression that he is absolutely seething. I wonder if Ganswein’s venture to explain the ‘dual papacy’ really rialed the antipope, given his continually diminshing popularity among Catholics is at an all time low. We do not know all the factors involved in Benedict’s departure, nor do we know the pressures the devils running the institution put on him. It is easy to assume his motives are cowardice and duplicity. One thing is certain from the anniversary video. Pope Benedict looked drugged and talked like a simpleton. The mutual admiration between him and antipope Bergoglio was as pretentious as it could be. Couple this with the question as to why Pope Benedict continues to wear white and his idiotic answer. Something is very rotten. What is clear is that Bergoglio is not the pope and it is time to say it out loud.

Its quite possible that the modernist bergoglio camp totally hates the modernist ratzinger camp….and maybe both of those camps hate the modernist wojtyla camp…..and maybe all three of those camps hate the modernist montini camp….and etc, etc, etc. They are all bad men and all were/are committed to destroying the Catholic Faith. They obviously cannot destroy it, but they are THAT stubborn in their evilness that they will continue to do everything in their power to do so. Many are coming to the common sense understanding that bergoglio obviously is not a valid pope, which is something that most wouldnt have remotely considered…that we have a false pope….prior to 2013; this craziness that we currently see DID NOT start with jorge.

Again, Rich, you seem hell bent on attributing motives you cannot know. Yes, mistakes have been made by past popes; nonetheless these were valid popes. I do not believe for one minute that the motives of Popes John XX111, Paul V1, John Paul 11, and Benedict XV1 were malevolent. And I believe that Vatican 11, for all its distorted interpretations, was a valid council. What I do remember in the long years as apostasy festered within the Catholic Church, that it was Pope John Paul 11 and Cardinal Ratzinger (head of the CDF) who worked together to correct error and to teach the true Faith. There was no confusion about the Faith if one wanted to know what the Church really taught. Their fruit was the Catechism and all the clear, consistent, and substantial writings of John Paul. Those two were maligned and criticized from all sides in those hard years.
When things are so bad as they are now, it is tempting to attribute blame where we can reasonably assume it. Bergoglio is, on the other hand no true pope. He exhibits no love, nor any genuine understanding, of the Catholic Faith. His mission is to destroy the Church. He has trashed the Sacraments of Matrimony and Confession and now he is allying with Luther. Tampering with the Mass and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is coming soon. You can take that to the bank. Bergoglio’s chief fruits are confusion and division. As predicted , he is creating a new false church, a parody of the Church he attempting to destroy. It is happening before our eyes.
Each one of us will have to make a decision either for Christ or for tis new false church. It will cost to stand for Christ. Attributing evil motives to popes who were human and may have erred is not helpful at all. What helps is prayer and reliance on Jesus and His Mother.

Do you really believe the Council itself was not a total rupture with the past, and that Popes like John Paul II did not actively foster that rupture while claiming it didn’t exist?
Contrast Scripture and 2000 years of Papal teachings on the condemnation of ecumenism and the need to convert non-believers before inter-mingling with them (for example) with Nostra Aetate’s claim that we worship the same God as the Muslims, (which Muslims deny as their God “has no associates” or Son) and which led to John Paul II and Benedict being praised for ending Catholic efforts to convert the Jews? -something both these Popes fostered, rather than making any efforts to correct as error.
And how can you turn a blind eye to John Paul II allowing the statue of Buddha to be place on top of a tabernacle in a Catholic Church in Assisi, and praying with people who worship creatures –while pre-conciliar Popes taught that the only possible reconciliation with heretics and non-believers possible, is for them to accept the True Faith, and forbid the Faithful to pray with them- a terrible scandal?
Our Lord Himself taught that those who reject the truth, should be shunned as the Tax collectors were in His time. St. Paul ordered Christians not even to eat with them, and St John said not even to open the door of your house to one who teaches other doctrines.
These are only a couple of ruptures. I recommend you read Mr. V’s postings on “religious freedom” and Christ the King, for some others of equal magnitude.

Dear HelpusLord,
I just finished an interview of Father Lanzetta on Rorate regarding his new book about the Second Vatican Council. It is a much needed text and as soon as I can scrape the money together I am going to purchase it. The issues around misinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council are just getting addressed. Pope John Paul 11 did not create the misinterpretations of that Council. He held the Bergoglian forces at bay for many hard years. I recommend that you read the interview of Father Lanzetti and consider purchasing his book too. The problems of Vatican 11 are not solved by glib, easy condemnations, nor is it fair to site the two who prevented for years what we are seeing now as formulators of that rupture.

helpusLordJuly 10, 2016

I’ve read the Rorate piece to which you refer, and it struck me as more proof that the council was a source of confusion to all in the Church. Note the last line of the interview which says:
“The Fathers frequently depended on their theologians, but their theology did not always depend on the Church’s Tradition. This is also a factor that one must bear in mind, and that can settle, so I think, many discussions that are still open regarding the correct hermeneutics of the Second Vatican Council.”
You seem to have rightly assessed Pope Francis as the destroyer, but missed seeing the obvious fact that his predecessors led him directly to his ideological positions.
When you look at that statue of Buddha which John Paul II had placed in St. Peters in Assisi, how can you not see that as a carte blanche for Bergoglio to do as he has been doing? Where is there any hermeneutic of continuity with the past teachings on John Paul II’s part, any more than there now is with Jorge?
The reason I persist in this point, is that I lived through the pontificate of JPII, and am still seeing how it affected everyone I knew. What he wrote and how he acted were too often two very different things, which is why so many people were scandalized by him, and left the Church. Your defense of him and Benedict appears to be based solely on their written statements, but actions often speak much louder than words.

Barbara JensenJuly 10, 2016

If you read the article with understanding you will know that Father Lanzetta’s premise is based on the truth of interpreting the Second Vatican Council from the perspective and grounding of full alliance with Tradition. John Paul’s writing are completely consistent with Tradition, as are Cardinal Ratzinger’s, now Pope Benedict XV1. You appear to have a need to focus on the action of JP11’s putting a Buddha statue on the tabernacle at Assisi. Whether or not this particular action was indiscrete is a minor issue. John Paul’s point was what the Church has always taught regarding respect for others’ religion, not to mention the fact that Christ came for us all. He was not saying that all religions are the same or equating Buddhism with the fullness or the Catholic Faith. Faith is a gift which God gives to those whom He will. No amount of debating or proving that ‘we’re right’. fosters the growth of Faith in individual persons. The reason your friends and relatives are so upset by JP’s particular action at Assisi is because they want a superficial reading of Faith and the Church, that is, a ‘we’re right’ attitude. This is not the way of Christ, nor has it ever been the teaching of the Catholic Church. Read the article again and see what Father Lanzetta says about religious liberty and what the Church has always taught about it. Yes, we have the fullness of the Faith. John Paul held and passed on that fullness of that Faith. In order to help persons be disposed to receive the richness of Christ, it is necessary to give them the freedom to choose Him. This is not done by negating the religious framework out of which someone is working and telling them they are ‘wrong’. In the Assisi experience, whether one agrees with what was done there or not, the purpose was to create a respect for persons freedom to choose. That freedom is created when they are not put in a position to defend what they believe.
Much more serious was what Pope John Paul 11 wrote and how he corrected error all through his long pontificate. Both he and Benedict (still pope) were valid popes and taught the fullness of the Faith. Others are brought to Christ not by proving ‘we’re right’ but through authentic penetration of the Mystery of Christ by living it. Leave the judgments to God.

helpusLordJuly 10, 2016

I see nothing superficial about people expecting to see the Pope acting only in accord with the fact that the Catholic Faith IS the only one that “is right” , precisely because without that understanding, people are led into the heresy of indifferentism. Since we are right, all others are “wrong”. And the ways they are wrong, are harmful to their souls. This is why Our Lord sent His disciples to teach all nations all that He commanded. Part of that is acceptance of the Eucharist, without which He said they have no life within them.
Your attitude seems to me to be equating sacrilegious desecration of a Catholic Church with simple attempts to create a dialogue environment in which those who hold false beliefs are not forced to defend them, i.e are made comfortable for the purpose of exchanging ideas, with the Catholics intending to show them the truth.
It is false ecumenism to allow them to “worship” their false gods in a Consecrated Catholic Church.
No insignificant or minor matter at all, except to those who wish to dismiss these scandals and continue supporting their perpetrators as innocent.

Barbara JensenJuly 11, 2016

We agree on Father Lanzetta’s foundation premise in his interview. I do not believe that John Paul’s putting the Buddha n the tabernacle ‘gave Bergoglio carte blanche’ at all. Since you insist on reducing others not being Catholic to a matter of ‘being wrong’ there is no further need to belabor this discussion, except to remind you that Faith is a gift. It is not something that one can ‘demand’ of another person. When Jesus gave us the Holy Eucharist and told others what He was going to do, many no longer walked with Him. He did not condemn them, but rather looked at His Apostles sadly and said, ‘Will you also go away?’ When Jesus sat with the Samaritan woman at the well He did not tell her she was ‘wrong’ but led her to the point where she was open to receiving Him because she desired Him. Go read Christ’s whole manner with her. In that discussion it was not a matter of ‘right and wrong’ was it? She even asked Him which was the true religion. While Jesus owned that the Jewish religion was the true religion, He told her that the time has come when the Father desired ‘true worshipers who worshipped in spirit and in truth. It is just such worshipers,’ He said, ‘that the Father desires.’ The question for each of us is whether or not we are true worshipers. That is a lifelong, inside job. It is out of becoming true worshipers that Jesus can work through any one of us to lead another person to Him.
I am astounded at your attitude regarding belief in the Holy Eucharist. To believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is sheer gift of God. One cannot ‘demand’ it of another. It is a violating attitude of another’s freedom, and such an attitude precludes the possibility of another opening to such a Gift because the interior freedom to do so has been squelched. This is the teaching of the Church and always has been. Go look it up.
Putting a Buddha statue on top of the tabernacle may have been an indiscrete act, but it was not a ‘desecration of the Catholic Church.’ I agree with you that Bergoglio’s allowing other religions to worship in the Catholic church was very bad. Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict did not create the abuses of the Second Vatican Council. They maintained orthodoxy through all the long deteriorating apostasy that is now blooming. During that time they were ridiculed mightily by the bishops, and they were not obeyed by them. That is why we are where we are now. The heretics have gotten their man into the top spot, and overt schism will be soon to follow. All during those long years of heresy, John Paul and Benedict stayed the course for Jesus Christ. They did not create the years of apostasy that have preceded where we are now. They attempted to clarify the Truth the Church has always taught in the midst of the howling of the apostate bishops who would not obey them.
Jesus Christ is our Master and true Teacher of effective evangelization. Nowhere does He reduce evangelizing to a matter of ‘right and wrong’. He ate and drank with sinners, He healed others without asking as requirement that they follow Him. He left each person free to choose Him or not choose Him Allowing Jesus to reign within each of us–in spirit and in truth—is the ground out of which the seeds of true evangelization grow. True evangelizing does not come out of triumphantly sitting on the Treasury of grace contained within Catholicism while chanting to others, ‘We’re right! We’re right!’ That is not what Christ did, and that is not what we are to do either. I believe this conversation has gone as far as it can go. I ask God to bless you, lordhelpus.

helpusLordJuly 11, 2016

Thank you for your prayers, they are always appreciated. I will pray for you, too, Barbara.
I believe you seriously err in insisting on adopting the attitude that anyone who speaks of the rightness of our Faith and the errors of others, is acting in a triumphal manner, as if lording it over their listener, rather than acting from love of God, truth, and their neighbor, with sincere concern for their souls. God does act in all our lives, but he also requires of His followers, the willingness to spread the truths that non-believers need to know, to free them from false religious beliefs. Scripture is replete with examples. You seem determined to label genuine passion and zeal for souls, with pride and arrogance. Yet our Lord warned his followers that the world would “hate” them, for the same reasons He was put to death.
You also express a kind of shock at the words I expressed regarding the Eucharist, as if they are not true. Yet they came from our Lord’s own lips.
Jesus said, ” I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.”
Where does your shock come from? The Church has always taught that these words were meant literally, and the missionary zeal of those who suffered and died spreading the Faith world-wide, was fueled by such words, and concern for souls who would not hear them.
Was their urgency a “mistake” due to their not appreciating religious freedom? Of course not.
But the false ecumenism of today, insists we refrain from telling Jews they need to come to believe in Jesus as their promised messiah, and is willing to let them live and die without hearing these necessary truths from us, presuming the Holy Spirit will accomplish it in due time, without us doing anything that risks upsetting them. If we spend time “accompanying” them, and affirming the positives we can find in their practices, while they remain in their rejection of Christ, there will be a price to pay when we stand before God some day. Jesus sent his disciples into the towns with the news that the Messiah had come, and told his followers to shake the dust from their sandals if their words were not accepted, adding His own words of woe for those who failed to listen. A short time later they reassembled with the results, so obviously He gave them no time for the gradualistic approach.
I seen people convert when hearing these truths spoken with love and concern for their souls.
I’ve also seen people remain obstinate in sin for life, when those around them affirmed them while waiting for them to somehow absorb the goodness of their company, rather than warning them about how suddenly their judgment day might arrive, and the fires of hell they risked. These are two different topics–conversion and repentance from sin, but both have become neglected in the past 60 years, due to the kinds of ideas you are promoting here, many of which were proposed by philosophers and theologians whose ideas were once condemned by the Church, until John XXIII embraced them and men like John Paul II tried to rehabilitate them.
But as you’ve expressed a desire not to pursue this any further, I’ll leave it at that. God bless you, too.

MikeJuly 10, 2016

Barbara, you state, “I do not believe for one minute that the motives of Popes … were malevolent.” While I believe that there is way too much calling any number of these popes as evil or having evil intent, yet a lack of malevolence is insufficient. We’ve all been taught “the end doesn’t justify the means”, but just because the “means” can be considered good, valid or nice, it doesn’t mean the end should be justified or even just okay. Even Louie, who felt called to show others the good fruits to be harvested from Vatican II began to equate that as a bad end on his part of supporting the Council. While his ride of the pendulem to the other extreme may be entertaining and thought provoking, I would in no way attribute evil inent to his motives any more than I should to Pope Benedict or, (as you say), anti-pope Francis. JP II accepting the “mark of shiva”, kissing the koran, bringing pagan idol worship into a church – on a tabernacle, negating the need of the conversion of the Jews, (as V II, Benedict XVI & Francis do), is all contrary to the pre-conciliar teaching of the Church. The affirmation that the Jews and Moslems worship the same God as the Christians requires the mental gymnastics of a PHD, (i.e. piled higher & deeper). Looking at the herculean task Fr. Lanzetti is undertaking, I think my time would be better served finding out how Leo XIII, Pius X, etc. answer the questions posed by the documents rather than all those discussing them.

If you start with the premise, Mike, that the Second Vatican Council is an authentic council, then it is time well spent to learn how it has been misinterpreted, distorted and used as a tool by heretics. In addition, if it is a valid council–and it is–we are duty-bound to learn its value and genuine teaching. If one starts with the premise that the Second Vatican Council was a false council, then it should be disregarded. However, the truth is that it was and is a true council, and it is only now, after 50 years of foolishness and error that those so equipped to do so are exploring what its value is for us.

my2centsJuly 8, 2016

rich, I think you hit on something here. I once heard a very powerful sermon on Hell. What struck me most regarding the description of Hell was that there was absolutely no LOVE in this horrible abyss. Every damned soul hated each other even though they had something in common—-their extreme hatred of Christ. Do the Modernists in the Vatican hate one another even though they all hate Christ’s church?
The very thought of it frightens me beyond words. There is not only evil in the Vatican–it is a loveless evil and they cover it up by talking endlessly about love, love, love!!!

When I first read Pope St. Pius X’s description of modernists’ disoriented thinking in “Pascendi Dominici Gregis”, I had to admit I recognized some of own past sinful behavior in it. I never consciously invited Satan to take over my soul, but I was willing to entertain his ideas that excused and rationalized away the things that should have caused me to condemn my own behavior as harmful, and own up to the need to change.
That warped version of truth I was holding on to, necessitated carrying around a warped version of Jesus– opposed to the one found in Scripture–far more “lenient “. Until I admitted that to myself one day, I was growing in vice, rather than virtue. But somehow God’s Grace (and the prayers of many faithful I’m sure), penetrated the darkness of my sin, and I sincerely confessed and made a commitment to change. I still find that process of self-deception being repeated in my life when other sinful habits threaten me; and I still rely on Grace and prayer and Traditional Church teachings, to keep me heading in the direction of heaven.
I think this is why I’d much prefer seeing discussions that focus on the rightness or wrongness of ideas people promote, –including our current and past Church leaders–which leave the amount of “evil” existing in them, for God to judge.